Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 107

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 96 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

MARIKA HAMILTON, MICHAEL HICKMAN,
JEFFREY and ELLEN YELLIN, and
BRENDAN O'LEARY, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. C 09-4152 CW
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 96)

Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., for
itself and as a successor in
interest to GOLDEN WEST BANK,
WACHOVIA BANK, and WELLS FARGO
FINANCIAL / NOWLINE BANK,
Defendant.
________________________________/
On April 19, 2012, Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to this Court's

20
Civil Local Rule 79-5(c) and (d), to seal a portion of their
21
motion for final approval of the class settlement containing
22
reference to information designated as confidential by Defendant
23
Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo filed a timely declaration in support of

24
the motion to seal.
25
The information that Wells Fargo seeks to seal is data
26
describing the results of its proactive reinstatements of
27
customers' HELOC accounts over a particular period.
28

These numbers

1

were provided to help Plaintiffs' expert estimate the value of

2

additional reinstatements of HELOC accounts likely to result from

3

Wells Fargo’s further proactive reviews of suspended accounts,

4

promised as part of the parties’ settlement agreement.

5

Fargo submitted a declaration stating that the data is private,

6

nonpublic business information that could benefit competitor banks

7

at Wells Fargo's expense.

8

Wells

Wells Fargo has demonstrated that the request to seal
satisfies the compelling interest standard generally applicable to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

documents contained in judicial records, except for those attached

11

to a non-dispositive motion.

12

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002).

13

applying the compelling interest standard, relevant factors may

14

include the public interest’s in understanding the judicial

15

process and whether disclosure of the material would result in the

16

improper use of the information for scandalous or libelous

17

purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.

18

Creditors Ass'n., 605 F.3d 665, 679 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009).

19

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.
In

Pintos v. Pacific

Here, Plaintiffs' expert had access to the information that

20

Wells Fargo seeks to seal and was able to estimate the value of

21

potential future reinstatements.

22

value of the settlement are contained in the public record.

23

the public's interest in understanding the value of the settlement

24

is not undermined by sealing the underlying data.

25

time, disclosure would come at the expense of Wells Fargo's

26

competitive position because it would provide private business

27

data about the value of its reinstatements of HELOC accounts over

The expert’s estimations of the

28
2

Thus,

At the same

1

a given period.

2

public’s interest in the information.

Therefore, Wells Fargo’s interest outweighs the

3

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is granted.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Docket No. 96.

5
6
7

Dated: 5/8/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3